Which showcases his universal appeal, despite how it might feel to those who disagree with other political views.
Spoilers Let’s talk about the destruction of Trek utopia…
- Thread starter Anters
- Start date
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Jean-Luc is a character who simply appeals to a lot of people. I've even seen evangelicals loving him just as I've seen antifa folks loving him, etc etc. He really has fans on ALL possible sides.
Radical leftist Starfleet captain hates capitalism, destroyed Ferengi ships just trying to make an honest living. When will we hold these immoral socalist evildoers responsible? More on Fox News at 11 p.m.
Picard is not a conservative icon. By constantly describing the future as "utopian," conservatives are basically saying that what Trek may propose is nothing more than wishful thinking, gobbledygook that might be a fun fantasy, but which would be tyranny if implemented. Therefore they feel no compunction to live up to or model their lives on Picard. They are not going to strive to appreciate the otherness of people they meet. They just want to box him into a fantasy land.
The funny thing about that is that on the "utopian" reading of Trek, people like them had simply... disappeared.
Conservatives are hardly unique in that aspect. All political ideologies are very focused on embracing the uniqueness of only the particular slivers of the spectrum they prefer.
That may be true, but the question remains: what about Picard do they emulate? Or is he just the Funkopop on their shelves of collectibles?
I don't know..I've never really seen traditional "conservative" points of view out of Picard, at best centrist with moderately frequent swings to the left. I've always seen Sisko and Archer being the ones that the conservative viewers connected with/emulated/ etc.
I only watched 5 episodes of "Enterprise" because I didn't like the whole idea of a retro series and I also found the characters bland and boring with the only exception of Trip Tucker.
But I guess that the "gloomyfication" of Star Trek started there.
He's a man military man who always carries out his duty and doesn't complain. Or at least he is in TNG. Not that I'm a conservative, but I can totally see why they like him.
The "gloomyfication" started in DS9. Enterprise was supposed to depict a less advanced humanity, hell the Federation didn't even exist yet and was less than 100 years after First Contact where the Earth was still recovering from WW3 and actively at war with each other.
I think if I were conservative leaning, particularly with the current conservative climate, Picard would literally be the last of the series captains I would identify with. He’s way too genteel and cosmopolitan.
Sisko, yes. Kirk, yes. Even Janeway. Picard? Makes no sense at all.
Sisko, yes. Kirk, yes. Even Janeway. Picard? Makes no sense at all.
What are they about? Please enlighten me. But notice that I prefer traditional SF like Star Trek and Star Wars. I also like good criminalseries like CSI and NCIS or an exceiting Western
Maybe because TNG, DS9 and VGR were so much better than anything made today.
However, I havent given up totally on Picard yet. It was just that Icheb thing which annoyed me. A rather popular character from one of the great series killed off in a disgusting scene.
That may be an aspect of Picard that they would admire, but isn't that the quality of every military leader depicted? He still uses that quality in order to maintain a multicultural, largely atheistic environment, casting light on imperial abuse of native populations, and promoting the concept of economy beyond capitalism that is not driven by the desire to possess.
The difference was that DS9 had a lot of lighter episodes in each season to lighten up the "doo-and-gloom" in some episodes and also great characters while "Enterprise" was just plain boring.
How many of those were during DS9's more heavily serialized runs?
I personally agree with you but I think they would just ignore that aspect. I used to work with a Christian who would argue that ST wasn't Atheist. People will just take what they want.
The CW has a whole slew of shows based on DC Comics superheroes, some lighter or darker than others. LEGENDS OF OF TOMORROW is probably the funniest of the bunch: a ragtag band of C-level heroes traveling through time on a timeship to protect history from various bizarre paradoxes, many of which they accidentally created by mistake.
Note: the first season (which is generally regarded as the weakest) played things relatively straight, but then the show got a sense of humor and has been getting zanier and zanier over the years. Just to give you an idea: last week's episode involved our heroes trying to stop Genghis Khan, recently escaped from Hell, from kidnapping Prince Charles back in 1997. And, yes, of course, one of the heroes had to angrily scream at the sky: "KHAAAAN!"
It's very silly -- in a good way.
He also actively facilitated the desire of the Federation to control resources and trade routes (The Price), the surrendering of Federation Citizens, colonies and worlds to an oppressive and totalitarian government, elected to support the status quo and help said oppressive government stop/arrest/destroy a resistance movement(Preemptive Strike) among others.
Which is why I stated earlier that Picard is a centrist character that has occasional swings to either side of the spectrum.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
